In article <8up6reF30eU1@mid.individual.net>, Krazee Brenda says...
> Are yours? Mine are not then most of the people that call me don't
> drool and are sober.
LOL! No, the people that call me are not drunk either. If I listen to
the voicemails, it's pretty easy to understand them. The transcription
just sucks.
Although... you aren't the only person who's told me they have no
problems with the transcription.
In article <4d8766d7$0$1070$afc38c87@read01.usenet4all.se>, Cheese
Eating Surrender Monkey says...
> GV has taken the route of having VT as a learned not bought
> technology. In the long run, this will serve its customers best. GV VT
> is an international project and is highly complex, only time solves VT
> issues.
Lots of time, apparently. I was a Google Voice user back when it was
GrandCentral, before Google bought the company.... and there were
problems back then, too.
> Anyhoo you can turn off VT and the number of other GV features are
> incredible. Free. Incredibly free.
I'm not discounting the value of the Google Voice service. Only the
transcription is useless (and I generally leave it turned on anyhow,
because it's no big deal to leave it turned on).
"Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> Here is a recent transcript I received
>
> Hi Justin, This is Francis, Leo see support one of the questions that
> the
> I P M support. It's asking, Yes, whether Wendy is a pool buy a new the
> patch.
> Whether we are ready to test it. And I will updates on the pickets and
> to
> remind you again and to see if that's a possibility. I know that it's
> difficult because The problem is not reproduce consistently. So. I'd
> like to
> get your input on that. Yes, and then I'll get back to the To idea.
> Thank you very much, goodbye.
>
>
> and another
>
> Hi Justin, This is francis CA, I would like to we but just a friendly
> reminder
> that the engineering engineers. Actually they were requesting for a
> for
> blows, mode, If you're not, they was to telling me that this taxation
> of
> Robel soft would help them. It is 19 the debug mode mould lock. So,
> you
> can get to propose molding off of a problem at the agent. Phone us
> that
> would be great. Thank you very much. Goodbye.
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:210320110755544468%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> nope. it works with any phone capable of texting, i.e., just about
> anything.
"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> I just thought of a possible consequence of an AT&T (ne้ Cingular)
> acquisition of T-Mo that's too horrible to contemplate...
>
> ...John Navas might start posting his Cingular FAQs in alt.cellular.t-
> mobile as well! :-0
That reminds me how stupid that name "Cingular" was. I'm not surprised
that soon after that company bought AT&T, they renamed the combination
to AT&T. BTW, anybody remembers what Cingular's name was before they
adapted that stupid name?
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:41:54 -0700, Steve Sobol wrote:
> In article <8up6reF30eU1@mid.individual.net>, Krazee Brenda says...
>
>> Are yours? Mine are not then most of the people that call me don't
>> drool and are sober.
>
> LOL! No, the people that call me are not drunk either. If I listen to
> the voicemails, it's pretty easy to understand them. The transcription
> just sucks.
>
> Although... you aren't the only person who's told me they have no
> problems with the transcription.
Now that you are being reasonable and not staring at my tits, I agree,
it runs both ways.
--
Hear Brenda's First Luv ! http://tr.im/2yad
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:45:05 -0700, Steve Sobol wrote:
> In article <4d8766d7$0$1070$afc38c87@read01.usenet4all.se>, Cheese
> Eating Surrender Monkey says...
>
>> GV has taken the route of having VT as a learned not bought
>> technology. In the long run, this will serve its customers best. GV VT
>> is an international project and is highly complex, only time solves VT
>> issues.
>
> Lots of time, apparently. I was a Google Voice user back when it was
> GrandCentral, before Google bought the company.... and there were
> problems back then, too.
>
>
>> Anyhoo you can turn off VT and the number of other GV features are
>> incredible. Free. Incredibly free.
>
> I'm not discounting the value of the Google Voice service. Only the
> transcription is useless (and I generally leave it turned on anyhow,
> because it's no big deal to leave it turned on).
I was a GC user, going on three or four years now. IMO, GV is not
ready for prime time and I am a bit surprised at that. It must be a
very complex thing to work out and Sprint users are going to notice
the glitches.
Customer service is nonexistent, all area codes are not covered,
"Unknown Caller" IDs are an issue. Will Sprint folks be able to use
GV for business, that's a supposed no-no.
Don't go accessing the desktop interface with too many IP addresses,
Google no likey that.
--
Hear Brenda's First Luv ! http://tr.im/2yad
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:12:47 -0700, "Cameo" <cameo@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>> I just thought of a possible consequence of an AT&T (ne้ Cingular)
>> acquisition of T-Mo that's too horrible to contemplate...
>>
>> ...John Navas might start posting his Cingular FAQs in alt.cellular.t-
>> mobile as well! :-0
>
>That reminds me how stupid that name "Cingular" was. I'm not surprised
>that soon after that company bought AT&T, they renamed the combination
>to AT&T. BTW, anybody remembers what Cingular's name was before they
>adapted that stupid name?
"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote:
>>That reminds me how stupid that name "Cingular" was. I'm not surprised
>>that soon after that company bought AT&T, they renamed the combination
>>to AT&T. BTW, anybody remembers what Cingular's name was before they
>>adapted that stupid name?
>
> In my area, it was BellSouth Mobility.
It was something else in the Seattle area, but I don't remember what.
In article <im8v4l$uun$2@news.eternal-september.org>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> > > I just thought of a possible consequence of an AT&T (ne้ Cingular)
> > > acquisition of T-Mo that's too horrible to contemplate...
> > >
> > > ...John Navas might start posting his Cingular FAQs in alt.cellular.t-
> > > mobile as well! :-0
> >
> > he's going to shill for at&t now.
>
> You mean "again."
i was referring to his going on and on about how wonderful t-mobile is
'in the areas people care about' (weasel words), despite numerous
independent customer surveys showing that t-mobile coverage is very
weak compared to other carriers.
"Cameo" wrote in message news:im8nau$jpk$1@news.eternal-september.org...
"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote:
>>That reminds me how stupid that name "Cingular" was. I'm not surprised
>>that soon after that company bought AT&T, they renamed the combination
>>to AT&T. BTW, anybody remembers what Cingular's name was before they
>>adapted that stupid name?
>
> In my area, it was BellSouth Mobility.
>>It was something else in the Seattle area, but I don't remember what.
In the Seattle MSC, when the 1900MHz PCS licenses were auctioned by the FCC,
it was originally won by GTE Wireless, who built and operated a system for a while.
When Verizon was formed, they had to divest the property because Airtouch
(US West Cellular before that) was the legacy B side 800MHz carrier in Seattle.
> "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote:
>>>That reminds me how stupid that name "Cingular" was. I'm not surprised
>>>that soon after that company bought AT&T, they renamed the combination
>>>to AT&T. BTW, anybody remembers what Cingular's name was before they
>>>adapted that stupid name?
>>
>> In my area, it was BellSouth Mobility.
>
> It was something else in the Seattle area, but I don't remember what.
Southern or Southwestern of Northwestern Bell....
--
Hear Brenda's First Luv ! http://tr.im/2yad
At 21 Mar 2011 12:12:47 -0700 Cameo wrote:
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> > I just thought of a possible consequence of an AT&T (ne้ Cingular)
> > acquisition of T-Mo that's too horrible to contemplate...
> >
> > ...John Navas might start posting his Cingular FAQs in alt.cellular.t-
> > mobile as well! :-0
>
> That reminds me how stupid that name "Cingular" was. I'm not surprised
> that soon after that company bought AT&T, they renamed the combination
> to AT&T. BTW, anybody remembers what Cingular's name was before they
> adapted that stupid name?
"Cingular" didn't have a name pre-Cingular, AFAIK. It was created as
joint venture between Southwestern Bell and BellSouth. I forget which
one owned the old PacBell network in the west that completed the Unholy
Trinity. I was a SWB user (and owner of an indie SWB dealership) at the
time of the merger.
At 21 Mar 2011 12:37:48 -0500 nospam wrote:
> In article <im7f11$u7a$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Todd Allcock
> <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> > I just thought of a possible consequence of an AT&T (ne้ Cingular)
> > acquisition of T-Mo that's too horrible to contemplate...
> >
> > ...John Navas might start posting his Cingular FAQs in alt.cellular.t-
> > mobile as well! :-0
>
> he's going to shill for at&t now.
At 21 Mar 2011 18:59:49 -0500 nospam wrote:
> In article <im8v4l$uun$2@news.eternal-september.org>, Todd Allcock
> <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I just thought of a possible consequence of an AT&T (ne้ Cingular)
> > > > acquisition of T-Mo that's too horrible to contemplate...
> > > >
> > > > ...John Navas might start posting his Cingular FAQs in
alt.cellular.t-
> > > > mobile as well! :-0
> > >
> > > he's going to shill for at&t now.
> >
> > You mean "again."
>
> i was referring to his going on and on about how wonderful t-mobile is
> 'in the areas people care about' (weasel words), despite numerous
> independent customer surveys showing that t-mobile coverage is very
> weak compared to other carriers.
I know- I was just pointing out that until he switched from Cingular/AT&T
to T-Mo, he waxed equally poetic about AT&T. And before he bought his
Android phone, smartphones were too bulky and didn't do anything his
RAZR, then Sony-Ericsson TM-506, couldn't do.
Obviously the nation's best carrier/phone is whatever John is using at
the moment!
"NessNet" <richard.no@damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in message
news:E1Shp.762658$Yn5.718310@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com...
> In the Seattle MSC, when the 1900MHz PCS licenses were auctioned by
> the FCC, it was originally won by GTE Wireless, who built and operated
> a system for a while.
Yes, I remember GTE wireless.
> When Verizon was formed, they had to divest the property because
> Airtouch (US West Cellular before that) was the legacy B side 800MHz
> carrier in Seattle.
I remember that, too. The names of these cell companies changed so
often over the years due to aquisitions and mergers that I could not
keep up with them after a few years.
Todd Allcock wrote on [Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:45:22 -0600]:
> At 21 Mar 2011 18:59:49 -0500 nospam wrote:
>> In article <im8v4l$uun$2@news.eternal-september.org>, Todd Allcock
>> <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > I just thought of a possible consequence of an AT&T (neรฉ Cingular)
>> > > > acquisition of T-Mo that's too horrible to contemplate...
>> > > >
>> > > > ...John Navas might start posting his Cingular FAQs in
> alt.cellular.t-
>> > > > mobile as well! :-0
>> > >
>> > > he's going to shill for at&t now.
>> >
>> > You mean "again."
>>
>> i was referring to his going on and on about how wonderful t-mobile is
>> 'in the areas people care about' (weasel words), despite numerous
>> independent customer surveys showing that t-mobile coverage is very
>> weak compared to other carriers.
>
>
> I know- I was just pointing out that until he switched from Cingular/AT&T
> to T-Mo, he waxed equally poetic about AT&T. And before he bought his
> Android phone, smartphones were too bulky and didn't do anything his
> RAZR, then Sony-Ericsson TM-506, couldn't do.
>
> Obviously the nation's best carrier/phone is whatever John is using at
> the moment!
Careful, he's like the Candyman or Beetlejuice, say his name too many times
and he shows up
Cameo wrote on [Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:47:00 -0700]:
> "NessNet" <richard.no@damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in message
> news:E1Shp.762658$Yn5.718310@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com...
>> In the Seattle MSC, when the 1900MHz PCS licenses were auctioned by
>> the FCC, it was originally won by GTE Wireless, who built and operated
>> a system for a while.
>
> Yes, I remember GTE wireless.
>
>> When Verizon was formed, they had to divest the property because
>> Airtouch (US West Cellular before that) was the legacy B side 800MHz
>> carrier in Seattle.
>
> I remember that, too. The names of these cell companies changed so
> often over the years due to aquisitions and mergers that I could not
> keep up with them after a few years.
In article <im8nau$jpk$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Cameo says...
>
> "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote:
> >>That reminds me how stupid that name "Cingular" was. I'm not surprised
> >>that soon after that company bought AT&T, they renamed the combination
> >>to AT&T. BTW, anybody remembers what Cingular's name was before they
> >>adapted that stupid name?
> >
> > In my area, it was BellSouth Mobility.
>
> It was something else in the Seattle area, but I don't remember what.
SBC was formed by the merger of Ameritech (former AT&T properties in the
Midwest), Southwestern Bell, Pacific Bell/Nevada Bell and Southern New
England Telephone.
SBC and BellSOUTH later merged to form the new AT&T.
The corresponding wireless properties made the same switches.
But Seattle has always been Qwest/US West territory.
On the other hand, AT&T's cellular division has always been
headquartered there. I think AT&T Wireless was what Craig McCaw's
original wireless phone service ultimately became.
Steve Sobol wrote on [Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:42:01 -0700]:
> In article <im8nau$jpk$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Cameo says...
>>
>> "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote:
>> >>That reminds me how stupid that name "Cingular" was. I'm not surprised
>> >>that soon after that company bought AT&T, they renamed the combination
>> >>to AT&T. BTW, anybody remembers what Cingular's name was before they
>> >>adapted that stupid name?
>> >
>> > In my area, it was BellSouth Mobility.
>>
>> It was something else in the Seattle area, but I don't remember what.
>
> SBC was formed by the merger of Ameritech (former AT&T properties in the
> Midwest), Southwestern Bell, Pacific Bell/Nevada Bell and Southern New
> England Telephone.
Not really, SBC was Southwestern Bell Corp, and they and Ameritech merged.
Ameritech was already know for providing ****** service and SBC was supposedly
worse, and after the merger they were.
They were known as SBC Ameritech for a while around here. They sold off
Ameritech WIreless to GTE
> SBC was formed by the merger of Ameritech (former AT&T properties in
the
> Midwest), Southwestern Bell, Pacific Bell/Nevada Bell and Southern New
> England Telephone.
>
> SBC and BellSOUTH later merged to form the new AT&T.
>
> The corresponding wireless properties made the same switches.
Interestingly, Cingular was formed as a joint venture of SBC and
BellSouth long before the two merged. SBC bought the old AT&T and
assumed the AT&T name shortly before merging with BellSouth, but Cingular
kept the name Cingular at BellSouth's urging (BS didn't want the company
they half-owned to have the other half's name.) When AT&T (SBC) absorbed
BellSouth, Cingular adopted the AT&T name.
"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.27f1ba66308dffbb989693@news.justthe.net.. .
> But Seattle has always been Qwest/US West territory.
True, but there's been also considerable GTE presence here.
In fact, up to recently I've been getting both Qwest and GTE Yellow
Pages.
> On the other hand, AT&T's cellular division has always been
> headquartered there. I think AT&T Wireless was what Craig McCaw's
> original wireless phone service ultimately became.
"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> Interestingly, Cingular was formed as a joint venture of SBC and
> BellSouth long before the two merged. SBC bought the old AT&T and
> assumed the AT&T name shortly before merging with BellSouth, but
> Cingular
> kept the name Cingular at BellSouth's urging (BS didn't want the
> company
> they half-owned to have the other half's name.) When AT&T (SBC)
> absorbed
> BellSouth, Cingular adopted the AT&T name.
I don't know ... These mergers get confusing because AT&T was also cable
operator here that was later acquired by Comcast. I never understood how
the cable AT&T related to the cell phone company of the same name.
In article <im92j0$73s$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
"Cameo" <cameo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "NessNet" <richard.no@damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in message
> news:E1Shp.762658$Yn5.718310@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com...
> > In the Seattle MSC, when the 1900MHz PCS licenses were auctioned by
> > the FCC, it was originally won by GTE Wireless, who built and operated
> > a system for a while.
>
> Yes, I remember GTE wireless.
I only remember it as GTE Mobilnet.
>
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke
In article <9fidnQ5AG64PXBXQnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Richard B.
Gilbert <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> I just thought of a possible consequence of an AT&T (ne้ Cingular)
> >>>> acquisition of T-Mo that's too horrible to contemplate...
> >>>>
> >>>> ...John Navas might start posting his Cingular FAQs in alt.cellular.t-
> >>>> mobile as well! :-0
> >>>
> >>> he's going to shill for at&t now.
> >>
> >> You mean "again."
> >
> > i was referring to his going on and on about how wonderful t-mobile is
> > 'in the areas people care about' (weasel words), despite numerous
> > independent customer surveys showing that t-mobile coverage is very
> > weak compared to other carriers.
>
> Just because T-Mobile's coverage would not meet your needs, or mine,
> does NOT mean that it's useless to everyone. If it does what you need
> and charges less, go for it!!
i didn't say it was useless to everyone. my point was that navas is a
shill for t-mobile, and that it should be interesting to see him change
his tune if at&t/t-mobile is approved.
On 3/21/2011 7:59 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<im8v4l$uun$2@news.eternal-september.org>, Todd Allcock
> <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I just thought of a possible consequence of an AT&T (ne้ Cingular)
>>>> acquisition of T-Mo that's too horrible to contemplate...
>>>>
>>>> ...John Navas might start posting his Cingular FAQs in alt.cellular.t-
>>>> mobile as well! :-0
>>>
>>> he's going to shill for at&t now.
>>
>> You mean "again."
>
> i was referring to his going on and on about how wonderful t-mobile is
> 'in the areas people care about' (weasel words), despite numerous
> independent customer surveys showing that t-mobile coverage is very
> weak compared to other carriers.
Just because T-Mobile's coverage would not meet your needs, or mine,
does NOT mean that it's useless to everyone. If it does what you need
and charges less, go for it!!
Re: T-Mobile selling off to AT&T 
Linear Mode
